Objectively, what are the major differences, if any, in materials or production quality? (Interested in the comparison to pre64 because it seems more apples to apples with CRF.)

I've owned both. Multiple examples of both and I still can't think of how to answer this

This is just speculation, based on an example of one. But a while back I cut a new crown and oversized the scope base holes for a guy on the receiver of a 640. Judging from the swarf, the difficulty of the drilling and tapping operation...I got the definite impression that the 640 is made with something notably tougher than the 4140 of the Winchesters, and I have worked on a lot of them over the years. I am used to using sulfur and lard oil on my HSS tools, nope, went to cobalt and Rapid Tap after the first bite. The swarf from the cut-off and crown was like a coil spring steel, a continuous chip. Unscientific, but gut feeling is the 640 uses steel tougher than I am used to.

The biggest difference is the ejector, which is pretty important. Its a separate piece on the Pre-64 that performs its duty specifically. On the Husky its held in place by this kinda goofy flat spring affair, not as positive IMO. If I remember correctly, it also serves as the bolt stop on the Husky.

The trigger is easier to tune on a Pre-64 as well. The Husky military style trigger is robust, but much harder to tune to a good weight w/o creep. Most, if not all aftermarket triggers for the Husky require stock modifications.

I also prefer the safety on the bolt shroud of the Pre-64, but the Husky can be fitted for a side swing safety.

The Husky is much trimmer and a good bit lighter. I like the earlier 50's models with steel bottom metal.

I have both and while I really like the 1640s, I prefer the trigger/safety and bolt stop/release on M70s. This is probably design differences more than materials but I think Husqvarna could have done better on that bolt release tab.

I'm no metallurgist, but I agree completely with this based on owning several, one which required chamber work.

That's what JES says too. Husky barrels are significantly harder steel than Winchester

Mike - I guess what I'm grappling with has a lot to do with the demand for pre-64s. I realize a lot of that has to do with nostalgia and Made in America, etc. But they're also frequently touted as being some of the best mass-produced bolt action rifles ever made (not fair to compare an assembly line gun with a bespoke safari rifle.) The Husqvarnas overlap the M70s quite a bit, both used a CRF action, and both strike me as having been "nice, solid" rifles for everyday hunters, but not seen as gaudy or fancy in their day. So I'm wondering if the HVA can go toe to toe with the M70s on everything aside from mystique. (Does that make any sense?)

I believe so. The only flaw I remember on Husqvarna rifles were their tendency for the tang wood to split

Does the better steel carry forward to the 1640s?

Yes, a little relief on the stock where the tang sits helps. As does glass in the lug area. Some came with beech stocks as opposed to walnut.

I just picked up a 1640 in 3006. I was debating on whether I should bed the recoil lug and maybe the tang but its uncracked and survived this long maybe I should see how it shoots first? The stock is in pretty nice shape and has the later alloy bottom metal.

I wouldn't fuc k around, bed it now and shoot it for a lifetime. I still have at least three 1640/640 take off stocks on my bench and all are cracked at the tang/wrist due to setback at the recoil lug. Course, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’, Well do ya?

All of these exhibit setback at the recoil lug mortise. All resulted in similar cracks at the tang/wrist.

Personally, I prefer the 640 and 1640 over the Model 70 but the Husqvarna's weakness is the inletting and the Model 70's weakness is the gas handling. My favorite Model 70 is a 6.5x55 Classic.

Me, I enjoy both, but judge each axample on it's condition. I have a few dozen Husqvarnas and 3 model 70's.

Yes

The M70 looks better

That or their heat treating process was different or inconsistent. Neither great, as that actually causes embrittlement. This was common in some early manufactured 1903 springfields and some eddystone manufactured m1917's. I always thought I'd like the 640, until I handled them and really looked them over. They seem to be great rifles that are comparable to the pre 64, but less refined like most mauser 98 derivatives. Basically an FN 98, which is a great platform for a build. The 640's I've handled were smooth, but a little clunky compared to the pre 64 model 70. Generally the 640 can be found for a great deal, if you can find one. They seem to be getting harder and harder to find. I wish I would have purchased the ones I have seen in the used rifle racks over the years. The most recent one I handled was only $400.00. A bargain, as compared to most pre 64 model 70's I've seen...

It’s always puzzled me how they could make such excellent rifles, but not figure out how to prevent that. I have a Heym in .308 that split badly, but that stock is the lightest walnut Mauser stock I’ve ever seen, and is very trim to boot. I put two crossbolts through that one and am hoping for the best.

Yes it does

The 640s were built on 2 different actions, "strengthened" commercial pre-1898 style small ring Swedish actions and large ring 98 actions made by FN. The "strengthening" involved the elimination of the thumb slot in the left receiver rail. I have a few 640 in 6.5x55 and 8x57 built on both actions. I converted the SRs to cock on opening with the Dayton-Traister kit and replaced the triggers with Timney units. The LRs feel and function like any other commercial Mauser 98.

The 1600/HVA series action is basically an in-house hybrid of the 2 actions that Husqvarna had used in the 640 series. Frank DeHaas wrote a chapter on the Husqvarna HVAs in his bolt action rifles book, probably the best that I've read on the subject.

All of my rifles with HVA actions have mannlicher-style full length stocks and were purchase because I like most rifles with mannlicher-style full length stocks, not because of the actions that they are built on. For me, the Husqvarna mannlichers have the best balance of any regular production rifle with a mannlicher-style stock, making them a good choice for still-hunting. It seems that people either really like or really dislike mannlicher-style stocks, sometimes to the point of obsession.

BSA, you will note in my post that I used the term "tough" deliberately. If you look at an internet condensed tutorial 'on the properties of steel' you will see 'toughness' is an entirely different animal than 'hardness'. It is a very large leap to accuse Swedish steelmakers of improper hardening and/or embrittlement without evidence. To compare Husqvarna steel with Eddystones, low number Springfields is a hell of a stretch.

If you want to go getting technical, the 640 series was built on 4 different actions: The so called "strengthened" action, an FN Supplied Military pattern action, FN Supplied transitional commercial action, and the FN Commercial we are all familiar with.

Can't comment on materials or production, but I believe that all three are more than adequate.

I see the differences being more in the design. The 640 is an original Mauser design. The Model 70 is an evolution away from that, and the 1640 is an even further evolution. I cannot say whether the Model 70 and 1640 are improvements as claimed.


Okie John

My friends, family, coworkers all say I'm a gun nut, I'm the gun guy, the one with a finger on the pulse on whats out there in the gun world.

It would blow their minds if they were around true rifle looneys like you guys.

I like the M70 trigger and safety but, the 640 (m98) is a superior rifle IMHO. Now when it comes to the 1640, I have never shouldered a rifle that fits me so perfectly and they are tough!

Simpson's still has quite a few 640s, albeit mostly in larger chamberings. I'm working with a 1640 in 6.5 Swede at the moment, stock came in very good shape and I plan to glass bed as a preventative measure regardless of how it shoots. Is the cracking issue why some of the later 1640s come with the cross pin near the trigger area (I'm assuming it's not for aesthetics)?

Many of those with cross pins came with Sako triggers which required additional inletting, equaling less support.

I've had a few pre-64 M70s, quite a few rifles based on the FN Commercial Mauser action and one Husqvarna 640. Funny thing, all the pre-64s are long gone and the FNs and Husky are still here. Guess I just liked them more.
Paul B.

Thanks, z. Are the Sako triggers considered an upgrade or just on par with the military trigger?

I really like the 1640, have owned a few over the years. Their handling and weight savings plus lower cost compared to M70’s is why I prefer them.

Very much an upgrade. Steel, so a tad heavy but not obscenely so. Very adjustable. But, with some careful tuning you can get the non-adjustable to a nice state of tuning.

Finally had a chance to take a look below the hood of my project 1640. At some point, someone did a little number on the upper edge of the inletting at the tang. The action is a very tight fit in the stock, so I'm guessing someone tried to get it out by pulling back on the barrel. Whatever little bit was hanging on finally gave way. Thankfully the piece is intact and easily epoxied back on... but also got me thinking, are there *any* after-market stocks for these? The webbing and other inletting beneath action looks great.

Anyone have tips or pictures for bedding 1640 actions? I’ve never done it before and I have two 1640’s that need to be done.

Are you doing the whole action area or just the lug and tang? I'm planning to do the latter in the next couple weeks before floating the barrel then refinishing the stock.

Watching this….I have a 1600/1640 needs to be bedded it doesn’t shoot the best currently but I hat to give up without trying proper bedding first.

I'm not sure why a 1640 would be any different than a typical Mauser clone with the lug also serving as a pillar for the front action screw? (Zastava, Mark x, etc.) I haven't done a Husky yet, but quite a few Zastavas. They're pretty straightforward.

I'm honestly not sure which to do.. Hoping someone can chime in.

I would do the lug and tang. For a hunting rifle I don't think the full length treatment is worth it. I've always liked the Miles Gilbert kit. Great directions, all materials included, epoxy isn't super runny.

There's an older sticky on this forum that's a good primer and Larry Potterfield has a helpful video on YouTube. He does the full length, but it helps visualize where to relieve woodn, etc.

I had good luck on several just doing the recoil lug. After your done open up the hole where the action screw feeds through with a rat tail file. You want the recoil lug absorbing the force, not the screw, it should float in the hole. I usually only bed the lug, unless I am trying to prevent wood compression from a tight rear action screw. The Husky’s I’ve played with all had a metal pillar which the rear action screw goes through. This prevents over-compression, so no need to bed tang as long as this pillar/sleeve is bonded well to the wood. The rear of the action where it meets the stock is curved. Take a dremel with a sanding drum of similar diameter as the rear tang and open this up so there is a little gap between the tang and wood. This way when the rifle recoils and the thin magazine wells flex, the tang can move a little instead of being driven into the stock wrist. After you open this area up a little, seal it with Tru-oil, or something similar.

Nothing wrong about your logic on the tang. I do it anyway for two reasons: I like the idea of the bedding being symmetrical (front/back) in case those old metal tubes ever shift. And second, I tape the back of the tang to preserve the metal to wood gap, but I'd rather it be the metal to epoxy gap in case it didn't ever shift the wood stock due to weather, moisture, etc. Not sure that much warpage could really happen, but it's not much effort to dremel a little and tape the tang. I take the trigger fixture off anyway while bedding (pure paranoia lol).